We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

You get some data. You look how likely that would be to occur at random using probability, often assuming a model for your data source (most usually the Normal distribution, which is what all repeated trials will converge to if repeated infinitely, by the central limit theorem). That gives you a confidence level of how likely/unlikely the observed situation would be to occur by chance.

That's the basics of it...

Most people think... Great God will come from the skies... Take away everything... And make everybody feel high (Bob Marley)Join the CFC Scrabble group!
Discouraged in the gob

You get some data. You look how likely that would be to occur at random using probability, often assuming a model for your data source (most usually the Normal distribution, which is what all repeated trials will converge to if repeated infinitely, by the central limit theorem). That gives you a confidence level of how likely/unlikely the observed situation would be to occur by chance.

That's the basics of it...

Click to expand...

A meant a bit longer than that. I suppose I could write some more detailed stuff. Or just link to some wiki articles, either way would be good.

Well in the atheism thread we were talking about undecidability and the limits of proof via axioms when reasonable axioms can produce counter-intuitive results.

But any mathematical discussion is fine by me as long as we keep those pesky physicists with their "real world" applications out of it Just kidding of course although I suck at applied maths.

My main strengths are linear algebra, combinatorics, analysis, a bit of number theory, statistics (only because of lack of pure maths courses in my 2nd year ), chaos/fractals, and 3D stuff. I liked topology but it was WAY HARD.

EDIT: A bit of geometry too but only from linear algebra really.

Most people think... Great God will come from the skies... Take away everything... And make everybody feel high (Bob Marley)Join the CFC Scrabble group!
Discouraged in the gob

Well in the atheism thread we were talking about undecidability and the limits of proof via axioms when reasonable axioms can produce counter-intuitive results.

Click to expand...

That is something I've never put a lot of thought into. My gut reaction would be to reject the axiom as incorrect, but if it works in other instances, I guess it would be valid.

But any mathematical discussion is fine by me as long as we keep those pesky physicists with their "real world" applications out of it Just kidding of course although I suck at applied maths.

My main strengths are linear algebra, combinatorics, analysis, a bit of number theory, statistics (only because of lack of pure maths courses in my 2nd year ), chaos/fractals, and 3D stuff. I liked topology but it was WAY HARD.

EDIT: A bit of geometry too but only from linear algebra really.

Click to expand...

I'm an ecology major, just Calculus (up to multivariable), diff eqs and stats. Although I am kinda interested in math.

Ha ha, I've been reading wikipedia about Euler and following links led me to this gem which shows how a square wheel can roll smoothly if the ground consists of evenly shaped inverted catenaries of the right size and curvature, with animation.

Ha ha, I've been reading wikipedia about Euler and following links led me to this gem which shows how a square wheel can roll smoothly if the ground consists of evenly shaped inverted catenaries of the right size and curvature, with animation.

Lets say I were standing in the centre of that square, and experienced no rotation myself; that is, I am completely unaware that the square I'm standing on is moving from left to right, or that I am rotating with it. Rather, all I see is those catenaries rolling around the outside of the square. Am I right in assuming that it would look to me as though a circle of radius equal to half the diagonal width of the square were rolling around the square?

No, I don't think that's what it would look like. There is a definite perigee and apogee (not sure if those are the correct terms), so, I think it would seem as if the catenaries weren't curved at all; rather it would appear as if the edge of the square were receding and approaching - like the tide.

as long as we keep those pesky physicists with their "real world" applications out of it Just kidding of course although I suck at applied maths.

Click to expand...

So you throw us peskys out, toghether with our real world
Personally, I always found it more fascinating when a mathematical model can be applied to real world (approximately), but I guess others find it fascinating working with immaculate equations.

Why the excessive love for early warfare?
I feel like I should hire a staff when I get into a big war ... I must be getting (Enkidu Warrior, Jan 2004)

I've thought about it, and, no, it wouldn't look like a circle, for the obvious reason that, if you tracked a single point, it would get closer and closer, then further and further away, to infinity, whereas if it were a circle it would disappear after 90 degree rotation of the circle.

Anyway, it would only make sense to a person if there was either a really, really long line of catenaries that are revolving around the square, or the person would realise that they are in fact rolling on a line of catenaries. I guess that's how people realised they were revolving around the sun, and the sun was revolving around the centre of the galaxy, that other stars were also revolving around -- it was the only way to make sense of it all.